Pope: Gayness as dangerous as the rainforest being destroyed.

[appolose]

fkusumot said:

appolose said:

What I mean  by saying "external world" is any proposition about reality.

What I mean by "nothing can be proven" is that there is no method for gaining knowledge that would avoid depending on knowledge in the first place (or rather, looking for a method of truth already begs the question as to whether you can know a method will give you truth). Hope that's clear... knowledge is the only certain beginning of epistemology... merely because I can't analytically go any farther back.

Really, what I just said is the answer to your question as to "how do I know this isn't based on a false premise". I'm merely recognizing that by definition, knowledge will already be necessary to even posit a method of truth (it's not a premise about reality...it's the definition of words). It is a confession that any belief is already dependant on knowledge.

I'm not sure I follow you. What "knowledge" is it first necessary to possess in order to be able to gain more knowledge? What do you mean by "a method of truth"? Are there different methods of truth?

I ask these questions because you've said that nothing can be proven about the external world. You've avoided saying anything about any other type of world. As far as I can tell you don't believe anything can be proven. Is that correct?

By method of truth I mean any system used to gain certain knowledge (as opposed to uncertain knowledge) about the "external world"  (I'll clarify what I mean by that in a moment).  For example, empiricism and rationalism are such systems.  They need "knowledge" at first to actually work, though.  Empiricism only works if you assume your senses can be trusted. That assumption is the knowledge I'm referring to, something which empiricism cannot provide (because that would be circular).  There definitely are many methods (infinite methods, I suppose) of truth; it's just whatever one chooses to say gives knowledge (like the flipping-a-coin example I mentioned earlier), but they all have to assume something in order to work; themselves, because the systems can't rpove themselves  (unless they're assumed to be true already, but that defeats the point here).

By the "external world" I mean whatever exists.  Any other "world" (should there be others, I mean) or reality or universe would fall under the catagory of external world, because they exist.  Logic and meaning aren't that type of thing to exist, so they are fine to use.   It is to the external world are methods of truth applied; therefore, nothing can be certainly known (that is, nothing cannot be first assumed) about the external world.  That's why I feel I can say "nothing can be proved", because I'm only referring to the external world.  I can prove that methods of truth rely on assumption to operate because it's a question of meaning, not existence.